the people that voted for the other parties voted for those parties specificly not a coalition of all of them, besides that this is a pretty shitty thing to do and i doubt it will go through. I might even support this if it was voted for and the bloc weren't part of it.
Sounds like a horrible idea. One of the things I really looked forward to about moving to Canada was the fact that there were more political parties to choose from than the bicameral legislative wad of fuck that we have here in the U.S. When it comes to running a country with democratic principles in mind then it's always a better idea to leave many options on the table. Simplify things too much and you'll find yourself choosing between the lesser of two evils just like we do down here.
The coalition would probably be capable of a lot more corruption than each individual party would be separately, also. It's kinda scary to think that you wouldn't be able to vote for one asshole without inadvertently supporting an entire collection of secondary assholes from different parties that he's associated with.
I might even support this if it was voted for and the bloc weren't part of it.
I forgot to mention the Bloc. I might have more support for the coalition if the block weren't in it. I don't want a seperatist in power. On the flipside, Ignatieff is replacing Dion so there would be a strong liberal leader. I've read a lot of his foreign policy and human rights papers, and he seems like he could do a lot of good.The bloc aren't actually part of the coalition IIRC, they are just supporting it in confidence votes.
And I thought the United States' political system was kind of crazy. Sounds like Canada is very loose when it comes to who runs the country. Does the governing party have no say in this? Is there a democratic election involved with these parties coming together and taking over?
The current government is in power but holds less than 50% of the votes in the country, so it is a minority government, and if the opposition parties decide to vote against the governing party on a confidence issue the parliment is dissolved, and really if there is a vote(hopefully not) is dependant on some really stupid things
So what happens when the coalition beats the conservatives in a vote of confidence and, in the resulting election, we get another conservative minority? Rinse and repeat?
The bloc aren't actually part of the coalition IIRC, they are just supporting it in confidence votes.
Anyway, I am all for the coalition, but I can see where people are coming from with their complaints, but they are kind of unfounded since well, the canadian democracy complete allows this to happen it is in the constitution and all that crap that lets this happen!
but yeah, go ndp finally gettin some power..LOL
they have some pre existing deal that makes it so they cant be in until 2009 or 10 but they will be part of the coalition after that happens. possibly so everyone in the country wouldn't notice them sneaking into the ruling government...but the conservatives seem to have thwarted that idea.
Everyone who thinks this is a coup or non-democratic or whatever needs to fucking go back to grade school. Look up the Westminster parliamentary system. This is totally legally and is actually pretty common in other countries.
PS: Harper was willing to form a coalition with the Bloc in 2004, so he's basically a huge fucking hypocrite.
uh Quebec wouldnt separate the very second the bloc would get any kind of power.... They could start a referendum, which means Quebecers would vote about whether to stay in Canada or leave, and I'm not sure such a referendum would pass at all today. And EVEN if the referendum passed, the Canadian government could refuse to recognize it.
Everyone who thinks this is a coup or non-democratic or whatever needs to fucking go back to grade school. Look up the Westminster parliamentary system.
I'm not allowed to vote so I didn't get the opportunity to cast my ballot in the last election.
I also grew up in the US, so I had to do research on what the hell was happening in order to better understand the idea that I haven't got a fucking clue what the Canadian government thinks its doing. I think I understand the concept of what's happening with the whole coalition thing, about the three parties combining (well, two plus support from one) to press a vote of no confidence, basically forcing out the Conservative cabinet. Thusly, we'd go from having a minority Conservative government to a (bad Zelda pun completely intended) Tri-Force Majority. If there is something wrong with my understanding of the situation, please feel free to correct me.
As it has been pointed out, something like this has never been attempted in Canada at the federal level, and I honestly think that throwing together such a coalition is a rotten way for the losing parties to lash out at the Conservatives. Basically, I see it as the Liberals and the NDP throwing something of an elaborate temper tantrum. A coordinated tantrum, but no less a tantrum. They didn't get a majority, so they're going to force a majority. It strikes me as bad politics.
Not that the Conservatives are any less to blame for the matter. Or, I should be more direct in saying that Steven Harper pulled a bonehead move in asking the Governor General to come to his rescue. Even worse is that she agreed to help, proroguing the parliament as to avoid the vote of no confidence. Here's brains for you: Let's put the government on hold so we can all sort out how to behave like grown-ups.
So now we've got the PM hiding behind the skirts of the GG. The left-wingers of the parliament are attempting to strong-arm their way in to power not even three months after the public vote denied them that right, and they are doing so after (according to CBC, anyway) they promised they wouldn't!
I am inclined to agree with Izekeal; if, at the end of January, the GG decides we need another election, I don't see Canada coming out with anything other than a Conservative minority provided the Liberals and the NDP don't do something stupid like, say, merge parties completely.
also believe it or not no one really keeps up with canadian politics so from everything we're hearing, yeah, it looks like some bizarre overthrow of an election because a party isn't moving fast enough on the economy. you both said GO BACK TO SCHOOL and then muttered something about how its more fair and how its been done in history before (ignoring that oftentimes when it has been done it's been done to implement a more fascist regime).
It's all about west vs. east.
The west(BC,Alberta,Saskat,Manitoba) are against the coalition because they are mostly right-wing and the east(Ontario but mostly Quebec) are for the coalition because it's the only way that the NPD could have any real power. Also, as a Quebecer, it's pretty funny to see how the rest of Canada sees the Bloc. Shit, I'm not separatist and I find it a bit ridiculous that you freak out at the Bloc being(not even being, just supporting) the coalition.
It means Parliament won't be in session, so nothing can get done.
And I think that most people aren't too uptight about Montreal or the big cities in Quebec, but mostly about the rural areas. At least here they tell us that's where most seperatist support is.
That seems to be a poorly conceived idea.It's not a dumb question.
Are there only certain times Parliament can convene or something? I don't get why they can do that, or how it would benefit the PM. I got that they won't be able to do anything, but what happens when they come back together? It's like it would just really tick off the Parliament and only further their resolve to boot Harper out.
Sorry to be asking dumb questions like this but I'm trying to grasp the situation.
For many Canadians, it's a term they're not familiar with but have come to know all too well in the last week: proroguing Parliament.
But just what does it mean?
Proroguing Parliament is a lot like rebooting your computer after you've finished working. You're essentially starting with a clean slate uncomplicated by all the programs you may have been into before you hit that restart command.
It's the period between two sessions of a legislative body, although it rarely happens just weeks after an election has been held.
It means all the MPs who were elected last October 14th will remain in place, but any unpassed bills or motions - like the controversial economic statement that started this mess - will be non-existent.
In effect, when the session starts again, in this case in early January, it would be as though the Conservatives never brought in the document and they get a second chance at presenting a new one.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is expected to do just that, bringing down an early budget.
Many Canadians are openly questioning the wisdom of letting a de facto bureaucrat no one voted for decide such a vital issue, but under our system, it inevitably falls to Jean. (The Governor General of Canada).
It's not a dumb question.
What Does Proroguing Parliament Mean? (http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_29732.aspx)
Suspending parliament gives Harper some time to come up with an economic plan so that he can present it when parliament reconvenes. Since that's a major reason why they're trying to oust him this allows him breathing room and time to fix up that issue. However, I don't quite think that that's going to make a major difference since it seems like this was just a catalyst to spark the opposition - they're not going to back down even if they are fine with the new plan I don't think. The damage has been done.
Kind of off-topic, but do they not say "sir" in the U.S.?
Ok, thanks for the explanation. Yeah, I think that since this is already out there, that would just be delaying the inevitable. And it also feels like this is gonna set a really bad precedent for the federal government.
And my understanding is that once Harper is kicked out, the Coalition gets to pick the next Prime Minister? Or at least install an interim PM? When would Canadian citizens get a say in this?
see the problem is "everyone" doesn't mean only canadians and none of our gradeschools touched on this and more importantly the dude in the link who apparently is a poli sci professor up there says it's never been done federally before sooooo who cares about some westminster parliament?
also believe it or not no one really keeps up with canadian politics so from everything we're hearing, yeah, it looks like some bizarre overthrow of an election because a party isn't moving fast enough on the economy. you both said GO BACK TO SCHOOL and then muttered something about how its more fair and how its been done in history before (ignoring that oftentimes when it has been done it's been done to implement a more fascist regime).
its not necessarily undemocratic but it certainly isn't a tenet of democracy to ignore the results of an election because they've led to an unfavorable party getting elected.
if I haven't got it right at all, can you blame me? you guys aren't really justifying your statements with any examples at all and from what we're picking up it sounds like the other parties are going to oust the conservatives from power and somehow this is democratic?
if this isn't the case please clarify because that's what I'm hearing here? actually from dulcinea's post it sounds like they're just conglomerating into a single party which is weird but then I actually don't understand the non-democratic argument at all; if say Joe Lieberman wants to work with Democrats on an issue, he can and does. if the Greens were to collaborate with the Democrats, which is sort of what I guess is going on here, how is that undemocratic?
We (Canadians) were on this American show because of the political situation-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J60_UvBASx8
Kind of off-topic, but do they not say "sir" in the U.S.?
I care about the Queen :-/. She doesn't have power here or anything, but I think just as a figurehead, and a constant head of state (since we change our leader every few years or so) she symbolizes a tradition that Canadians can be loyal to (of course, besides the beautiful land that we live on).
So I agree she doesn't really have power (On this matter Michaelle Jean was just doing something symbolic...I don't tihnk she REALLY has a say in the matter). But I wouldn't say that no one cares about her.
Well, you're Ontarian. :rolleyes:
Well, you're Ontarian. :rolleyes:
I don't think she's got any power or anything, or that she should. Like I said, I just think that having the monarchy there is a tradition, and that it's something that makes us unique in North America. That being said, I don't worship the Queen, I just think having her is a tradition, and since we're a fairly new country and "Canadian Identity" is always in question, it's nice that we can have the tradition, and still preserve some of our country's roots/history.
So just so long as something is traditional and serves no purpose we should keep it anyway for absolutely no reason? you're right though, we SHOULD keep a filthy rich (constitutional) monarchy around because it makes us feel more secure (hint: it doesn't) knowing that the...the queen... is watching over us and have useless tabloids over royal offspring that no one gives a shit about and how rich they are.
just out of curiosity, is canada in a deficit, or does it hold some amount of surplus?
...she symbolizes a tradition that Canadians can be loyal to...Ha! Seriously? I'm sorry, but I feel no sense of loyalty toward the Queen. I am a proud Canadian, but I am definitely not a monarchist. In most situations, I would be loyal to my country, but to say that I'd be loyal to the Queen of England is pushing it quite a bit. Even though it's just a formality, I'd actually find it kind of tough to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen (which is required if, for example, you work for the federal government).
Coalition governments, especially this coalition government, are truly undemocratic.
Of course, I'm an Albertan and we sometimes like to pretend that we're our own little country, so maybe that explains my opinion about the Crown.
Talking of that, is it true that some people in your province start talking about separation since, you know, you're paying the perequation by yourself.Yeah, this whole situation in Ottawa, as well as near psychotic anger over equalization payments (which is stupid: apparently people here don't remember that we used to receive payments), has brought the Alberta separatists out of the woodwork. But, they are a very, very fringe movement that doesn't even come close to being as strong as the separatist movement in Quebec. Very few people take them seriously, despite the fact that they manage to make more noise than a group of their size should be able to.
There are very few traditions around the world which still serve a "practical" purpose (at least in the way that you seem to be implying). There is really no need for a lot of traditions around the world, but people keep them because it's part of their culture. I don't see why you're so upset that we "keep a filthy rich (constitutional) monarchy." The family might have money, but whether we "kept them around" or not, they would still have money. As well, they would still be in the tabloids. They're in the American tabloids, after all. It wouldn't change anything that you're complaining about. Also, if "no one gives a shit about how rich they are" why do you care so much? The Queen is not watching us, and I'm sure most of Canada doesn't use her as a security blanket, as she has very little to do with our everyday lives. To be honest, it seems like your tiff is more with celebrity worship than with a symbolic monarchy.
It's a tradition, plain and simple. It doesn't do us any harm. In fact, reprinting all our money, and going through the political process of completely detatching would probably cause us more inconvenience than keeping a constitutional monarchy. The Queen serves (to a lesser extent) the same purpose as Canada Day. If we get rid of all "useless traditions" we might as well get rid of Canada Day, as it serves no practical purpose except as tradition and a celebration of our culture and our country.
I think that a country's history is important, and keeping a tradition alive is a way of acknowledging it. And because of that, tradition is not "completely useless."
Anyway, this topic is not about the queen, it's about the coalition government. I'm happy to debate with you on this further via PM or on MSN, but I don't want to take the thread more and more off topic.
Last year the monarchy spent $64 million of public money (2.3% less than the previous year, adjusted for inflation) to fund its activities on behalf of the state, such as royal visits, the upkeep of palaces and official entertainment
Look at India and Hong Kong, they too were under British control (the difference here being that they were not founded as nations under their rule) but they gained independence and don't look like nations who still have to suck on a teat to get by.
While I get what you're saying about this coalition in particular, and while I agree with you to some extent (though, I think the Tories are dangerous as long as Stephen Harper is the party leader), I don't think that coalitions in general are undemocratic. I mean, what if the coalition had campaigned as a coalition; this one didn't, but what if they did? In that case, at least, I don't think you can argue that it would be undemocratic.Yeah, I actually was going to mention that but I totally forgot. If the people actually voted in the coalition government, then I'd be fine with it. However, in this case, that didn't happen, so I believe that it is undemocratic.
Um you're slightly off on this one. Hong Kong is not independent. It belongs to China now.Hong Kong is actually an independent region, and not actually considered part of China. Well, technically, it's part of China, but it is entirely independent from the rules that govern the rest of China, so most just classify it as an independent nation. It is called the "two systems, one country" policy as far as I know.
Yeah, I actually was going to mention that but I totally forgot. If the people actually voted in the coalition government, then I'd be fine with it. However, in this case, that didn't happen, so I believe that it is undemocratic.
This sort of system exists for practical reasons really. If the left-leaning parties have more seats than the right-leaning ones, obviously they'd vote against the right-leaning ones, with or without a "coalition". Not just out of spite, but out of ideological differences. And when a governing party lose most of the votes in parliament, one can argue that they form a pretty useless government that can't get anything done. Without a vote of no confidence, the country would be at a standstill for the rest of the term. And without coalitions, the cycle would repeat itself until people forced themselves to vote for a party they don't necessarily agree with, just to get a majority and the country working again.But, in reality a vote of no-confidence doesn't actually happen all that often. In fact, there have only been 5 prime ministers in history defeated by a motion of no-confidence. It has to be an extreme case before things will even get that far, and thus, it generally doesn't happen.
Won't a vote of no confidence mean a new election?
I'm watching CTV. Stephen Harper is now filling empty seats with Conservatives...
This is unbelievable. Harper needs to be called out on being the hypocritical little weasel that he is.The man has no scruples. He stands for nothing. He has no values. The only thing that matters to him is staying in power. In my opinion, he has become a liability to the Conservative party, and they would do well to replace him as party leader ASAP.
NO CALLING ELECTIONS WHEN YOU'RE UP IN THE POLLS: Nope, he did that this fall.
NO BLOCKING NO CONFIDENCE VOTES: Nope, he did that this fall.
NO STACKING THE SENATE, WHICH IN HIS OWN WORDS IS INEFFECTIVE, UNEQUAL, AND OBVIOUSLY NOT ELECTED: Nope, he's doing THAT now too.
This is a guy who made his CAREER campaigning against the very things he's doing. His response to a worsening financial situation is to hold the country's pursestrings as tight as possible, and he's breaking every word he's ever made. I've never been so frustrated with my own country before.
The majority of conservative party members want him out apparently. Once this is all over, he'll most likely be gone.Thank god. Harper is 99% of the reason that I don't vote Conservative. Maybe if he goes away, they'll start letting the more progressive members of the party (i.e.: the old PCs) start speaking in public again.
The thing that really weirds me out here is how many people refer to the PM as hot...Seriously? Ha! That's hilarious. Personally, I think he looks like a robot. And, his eyes are so soulless! How can anyone find that "hot?"
And yes, I'm pissed off about him stacking the senate. This is getting ridiculous, but if he called an election, he'd still win since he's turned this thing into a whole "coalition government is anti-canadian"You're right. He'd still win. It would probably be a minority gov't again, though, which would make the whole thing ridiculous. He might, however, have a slightly larger minority, because he's managed to turn this disaster into a political advantage for him and the Tories.
Seriously? Ha! That's hilarious. Personally, I think he looks like a robot. And, his eyes are so soulless! How can anyone find that "hot?"
His eyes may be souless. But he wears fuzzy blue sweaters. Only nice people wear fuzzy blue sweaters. O.o;
On a side note, apparently there's a stray cat colony on Parliament Hill, and Harper has a thing for cats, so every time a visiting dignitary comes, he tries to get them to adopt one of the cats...
And that's what makes our country great... :fogetshrug:
Letting you guys know in advance, I'm American. (I love how I can use this phrase to extort pity from everyone in any given situation)
First, supposing that the liberal parties don't opt for the 'coup,' don't the conservatives still need to compromise with them in order to pass legislation? I hardly see the reason for disregarding the outcome of a democratic election when the liberal parties still have a say in how to run the government.
Second, why should the three liberal parties form a coalition JUST to oust the conservatives? They all tout different policies, right? Supposing they do form that coalition, how do we know they'll make efficient legislation together? And if you're gonna say that it's better than having the conservatives run the country (having to compromise with half of Parliament), if the liberal parties make that coalition, wouldn't they still have to compromise with a good 40% of your parliament -- now pissed off because they've been ousted?
As far as I see it, with or without the coalition people are still going to need to compromise, unless the winning party has significant excecutive power over the legislature. And even with the coalition, the coalition parties still need to flesh out a concrete agenda -- whereas the conservatives already have one which is ready for debate.
I'm also pretty miffed by some of the one-liners against our 2 party system. It's not like 3rd parties don't have power at all in our country. In fact, after Nader ran in 2000 for the Greens and got a significant number of the general vote, the democrats decided to incorporate Green policy in the 2004 elections. Obviously, that didn't win them the election because of some fuck-up in Florida, but this still shows that our two-party system is willing to adopt other doctrines. Sure it's slower, but it seems a helluva lot more stable that other countries.
practically every porvincial power wants it to change.
Source?No need to quote "porvincial" powers. :fogetlaugh: